Note: Political Awareness never authorizes any candidate or their committees to publish its communication.

National Policy Roundup 2025

National Policy Roundup is a section to explain what legislation is currently being considered in Congress. The cases held by the Supreme Court, and actions taken by the Executive branch each week. The goal of this column is to break down the important legislation to help our readers better understand how current happenings in the federal government. How it can and will affect their lives as well as what they can do to help influence their representatives actions. 

Bills Passed by Either House or Enacted in 2025 of Note~

H.R. 1: One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (Enacted)

Summary of bill:
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (often called the “Big Beautiful Bill” or OBBBA) is an expansive reconciliation package that President Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025. It combines sweeping tax reform, spending decisions, and policy changes across federal programs and is among the most significant fiscal laws of the year. Key provisions include:

• Tax policy: Permanently extends many 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, raises the SALT deduction cap, expands individual tax deductions (such as for tips and overtime), and creates new tax accounts for families.
• Debt ceiling: Raises the federal debt limit by roughly $5 trillion to avert default concerns.
• Social safety net changes: Implements substantial cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs (including work requirements and eligibility changes), reducing spending on these services.
• Border security and immigration enforcement: Allocates large increases in border wall funding, new detention capacity, and enhanced deportation spending.
• Energy policy: Phases out or limits tax credits for clean energy and renewable projects, favoring fossil fuel development.
  The Congressional Budget Office projected significant economic and coverage impacts, including increased deficits and reductions in health coverage. 

Sponsor:
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) led the legislative effort.

Status:
Passed House and Senate, signed into law on July 4, 2025.

H.R. 4: Rescissions Act of 2025 (Enacted)

Summary of bill:
The Rescissions Act of 2025 rescinds approximately $9.4 billion in previously committed federal funds. It targets international assistance programs (such as development aid, migration/refugee support, and peacekeeping contributions) and eliminates funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This use of presidential rescission authority represents a significant assertion of executive influence over the federal budget process.

Sponsor:
Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA).

Status:
Passed both chambers and signed into law on July 24, 2025.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146) (Enacted)

Summary of bill:
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, formally the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, is a bipartisan law addressing non-consensual deepfake imagery and exploitative AI-generated content online. It requires covered digital platforms to promptly remove such content once notified, aiming to protect privacy and reduce online abuse.

Sponsor:
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of co-sponsors.

Status:
Unanimously passed the Senate, passed House 409-2, signed into law on May 19, 2025.

Laken Riley Act (S. 5) (Enacted)

Summary of bill:
The Laken Riley Act expands immigration detention rules and gives states more power to challenge federal immigration decisions in court. It requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to quickly take custody of certain non-citizens who are charged with or convicted of crimes like burglary, theft, shoplifting, or assaulting a police officer. DHS must issue detainers and take custody of these individuals if they are not already being held by other authorities. The law defines these crimes based on the state or local jurisdiction where they occurred. It also allows state attorneys general to sue federal officials if immigration enforcement decisions harm the state or its residents, including financial harm over $100. Courts must move these lawsuits quickly, and DHS now controls parole decisions, which must still be case-by-case and for urgent humanitarian or public benefit reasons.

Sponsor:
Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) and supporting co-sponsors.

Status:
Passed both chambers and signed into law on January 29, 2025.

Epstein Files Transparency Act (H.R. 4405) (Passed House / Enacted)

Summary of bill:
The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the Department of Justice to release records related to Jeffrey Epstein. The Attorney General must publish all unclassified documents, including FBI files, U.S. Attorney records, flight logs, travel manifests, immunity deals, plea agreements, internal emails, and reports on his detention and death. The release must happen within 30 days and the files must be searchable and downloadable for the public. The DOJ cannot withhold records because of political sensitivity, embarrassment, or reputational concerns. Some information can still be redacted, including victims’ personal data, CSAM, graphic injury images, or details that could harm active investigations or national security, but the DOJ must justify every redaction publicly. After the release, the Attorney General must send a report to Congress listing what was released, what was redacted, and any government officials named in the documents.

Sponsor:
1 Republican and 23 Democrats 

Status:
Passed both chambers and signed into law in 2025. 

S. 1582: Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)

Summary of bill:

• The GENIUS Act creates the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins in the United States, which are digital assets pegged to the U.S. dollar used for payments and digital transactions.
• It requires that stablecoins be issued only by “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” that meet federal standards for reserves, supervision, consumer disclosures, and risk management, drawing on traditional banking regulatory principles.
• The law ensures that stablecoins are fully backed by reliable assets (like U.S. dollars or liquid equivalents) and imposes reserve, audit, and transparency requirements on issuers.
• It sets a transition regime for stablecoin platforms and digital asset service providers to comply over a specified period. And prohibits offering or selling stablecoins that don’t meet the Act’s conditions once fully effective. 
• The Act also incorporates consumer protection and anti-money-laundering safeguards and subjects non-compliant stablecoin activity to regulatory penalties and enforcement. 

Sponsor: Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN).

Status:This bill was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and signed into law by President Trump on July 18, 2025

Here are individual summaries of each Supreme Court case you listed, with case facts, vote counts, and key legal issues from authoritative sources:

2025 Supreme Court Cases of Note 

Trump v. Illinois (National Guard Deployment to Chicago)

Facts:
President Trump ordered roughly 300 members of the Illinois National Guard (and additional Texas Guard troops) into federal service under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), claiming that regular forces could not enforce federal immigration law in the Chicago area due to violent protests and obstruction. Federal courts blocked the deployment, and the government asked the Supreme Court to lift the injunction. 

Question:
Whether the president has statutory authority to federalize and deploy National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement when regular forces are allegedly unable to execute federal laws. 

Decision:
The Supreme Court denied the administration’s emergency request to lift the lower court block, 6–3, keeping the injunction in place while litigation continues. The majority said the government failed to show a statute that allows troops to “execute the laws” in Illinois under the conditions asserted. Conservative Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.

Vote:
6–3 (majority keeps block; Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch dissent). 

Significance:
This ruling is an early and rare check on federal military deployment for domestic enforcement, emphasizing limits on executive authority and the need for clear statutory basis for National Guard use in U.S. cities. 

U.S. Supreme Court Lets Trump Remove CPSC Commissioners

Facts:
President Trump removed three Democratic commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), an independent agency with statutory protections against removal without cause. The dismissed commissioners sued, and a lower court blocked the removals.

Question:
Whether the president could remove members of an independent federal agency without cause, despite statutory protections designed to shield commission independence.

Decision:
The Supreme Court granted the government’s request to allow the removals to take effect while litigation continues, in a likely 6–3 order. The emergency order set aside the lower court’s block on the removals. The majority did not explain its rationale at length, as is typical on the emergency docket. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented, warning the decision undermines agency independence.

Vote:
Likely 6–3 on the emergency order.

Significance:
The ruling expands presidential control over independent agencies by weakening statutory tenure protection for commission members, signaling broader executive power over federal bureaucracy. 

FCC v. Consumers’ Research (Universal Service Fund Constitutionality)

Facts:
The Universal Service Fund (USF) finances subsidized broadband and phone service for rural, low‑income, and underserved users. A conservative group challenged the fund’s funding mechanism as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power (nondelegation doctrine). 

Question:
Whether Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by authorizing it to determine and collect USF contributions without clear standards.

Decision:
In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the USF mechanism. The Court said Congress provided an “intelligible principle” by requiring the FCC to collect fees sufficient to support universal service goals. By defining service principles, meaning the delegation did not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing the funding scheme was effectively a tax without adequate congressional limits.

Vote:
6–3 (majority upholds USF funding).

Significance:
This decision preserves a major federal program that supports broadband and telecommunications access nationwide and clarifies standards for nondelegation challenges. 

Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC

Facts:
The case involved a state law granting healthcare providers immunity from liability during a public health emergency. A plaintiff sued a therapy provider for discrimination under federal law after being denied treatment. The lower courts applied state immunity to bar federal claims. 

Question:
Whether state laws that provide broad immunity to healthcare providers during emergencies can block federal statutory claims.

Decision:
In a 2025 opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court, holding that state emergency immunity statutes cannot immunize providers from federal causes of action. The Court explained that under the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot defeat federal rights by granting immunity that conflicts with federal statutes.

Significance:
This ruling clarifies that federal statutory protections cannot be undermined by conflicting state immunities, reinforcing federal supremacy in civil rights and public health liability cases. 

Trump v. CASA, Inc. (Nationwide Injunctions & Immigration Orders)

Facts:
Multiple challenges were brought against President Trump’s executive immigration orders, including one on birthright citizenship. Plaintiffs and states obtained preliminary nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement. The government sought Supreme Court review. 

Question:
Whether federal courts have authority to issue nationwide injunctions that block enforcement of an executive policy for everyone, not just the parties before the court. 

Decision:
In a consolidated decision, the Supreme Court held that nationwide injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts. Justice Barrett wrote the opinion for a majority. The Court focused on statutory interpretation rather than the Constitution directly, signaling limits on broad judicial relief. 

Significance:
This decision reshapes how courts can block major federal policies, limiting the scope of injunctions and potentially affecting numerous challenges to federal actions, especially immigration and civil rights cases. 

Executive Actions of Note in 2025

Executive Order 14149: Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship

Date Signed: January 20, 2025.

What it Does: The order directs all federal departments and agencies to end federal censorship of constitutionally protected speech and forbids the use of federal resources to suppress speech, especially online. It also instructs the Attorney General to investigate past federal “censorship” actions and recommend corrective steps.

Administration Support: The White House framed it as defending the First Amendment and undoing alleged coercive pressure on online platforms to suppress speech, asserting that previous government actions violated free speech rights.

Opposition and Dissent: Civil rights advocates and critics argue the order is overly broad. And could reduce protections against harmful content online. Making moderation harder and possibly increasing misinformation. Many see it as a political move rather than a constitutional safeguard. 

Executive Order 14290: Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media

Date Signed: May 1, 2025.

What it Does: This order directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and federal agencies to cease all federal funding. Direct and indirect—for NPR and PBS, claiming taxpayer dollars should not support perceived biased news coverage.

Administration Support: The White House argues public broadcasting is outdated in today’s diverse media landscape. Asserts NPR and PBS exhibit partisan bias. And says taxpayers should not subsidize media deemed politically slanted.

Opposition and Dissent: PBS leadership called the order unlawful and harmful to public service broadcasting, saying it threatens educational programming. NPR and affiliates sued in federal court, claiming the order retaliates against protected speech and exceeds executive authority. Civil liberties groups have urged courts to block the order as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. 

2025 Federal Grants Pause (OMB Grants Pause)

Date Issued: January 27‑28, 2025.

What it Did: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) instructed federal agencies to pause the issuance and disbursement of federal grants and loans. While reviewing them for consistency with administration policy, including compliance with executive orders and priorities.

Administration Support: Officials argued this pause was necessary to reassess federal financial assistance programs for efficiency and alignment with administration goals.

Opposition and Dissent: Legal challenges quickly arose, with federal judges issuing stays that prevented wide shutdowns of funding. Critics argued the pause disrupted essential services like Medicaid and Head Start. And exceeded executive authority by disrupting statutorily authorized programs. The memo was later rescinded due to confusion and legal pressure, and lawsuits continued.

Presidential Memorandum on Repealing Unlawful Regulations

Date Issued: April 2025.

What it Does: The memorandum instructs federal agencies to identify and repeal regulations deemed unlawful under recent Supreme Court precedents. Or inconsistent with administration goals, part of an expanded deregulatory push.

Administration Support: Supporters argue this enforces the rule of law by removing regulations that exceed statutory or constitutional authority. Reducing burdens on individuals and businesses.

Opposition and Dissent: Civil rights advocates and regulatory experts warn that sweeping deregulatory mandates could weaken protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. And that using executive memoranda to target wide swaths of regulations may undermine Congress’s law‑making role. 

Executive Order on National AI Policy Framework

Date Signed: December 11, 2025.

What it Does: This order seeks to establish a unified national AI policy. Limit conflicting state AI regulations. And direct the Department of Justice to challenge state laws that clash with the federal AI framework. It also directs federal agencies to shape national AI standards and preempt state rules. (White House executive order text.)

Administration Support: Supporters say a national framework is needed to promote U.S. innovation. Avoid a patchwork of state laws that could hinder competitiveness and create consistent rules for AI development.

Opposition and Dissent: Critics argue the order could overreach federal authority. Undermine states’ rights to regulate AI for safety and ethics. And chill state experimentation. Legal and industry experts warn the DOJ litigation directive could provoke conflicts over constitutional separation of powers. And might discourage states from addressing AI harms.